Forget useless comparisons, appreciate what we have

Post by Jerit Roser —

So, I'm watching the 2009 MLB All-Star Game, and broadcaster Tim McCarver is telling me that the speed and acceleration on the base paths of Tampa Bay outfielder Carl Crawford is second only to Hall-of-Famer Lou Brock...

I'm sorry, Tim — and no disrespect to Mr. Brock, but I doubt that seriously.

And more importantly, we should stop caring if that's the case.

I'm not saying I don't appreciate Lou Brock or his speed.

The former Southern Jaguar broke into the Majors with the Chicago Cubs and spent about 15 seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals before retiring with the career record for stolen bases in 1979.

Brock's 938 successful swipes stood atop the list until Rickey Henderson passed it up a few years back.

And while I doubt Brock was faster than Crawford, it has nothing to do with where the two will stand in history once Crawford hangs up the cleats.

Crawford's only 27 and by season's end will likely be about 150 steals ahead of where Brock stood at the same age.

To be fair, Brock didn't make his way to the majors until he was two years older than Crawford was for his own debut, but Crawford's first eight seasons still look likely to trump Brock's — and Crawford will still have an extra two years of youth to work with.

Crawford is basically on pace to pass Brock if he can stay healthy and play for nearly as long as Brock did.

But again, that's not the point — and I honestly don't think it's going to happen anyway.

I doubt Brock was faster than Crawford is just because players are so much bigger, stronger and faster than players were 30 years ago.

It's a pretty widely held truth.

Just sticking with the Brock-Crawford example, Crawford for instance has McCarver and his partner Joe Buck clamoring about his amazing speed despite having 3 extra inches and 50 more pounds to have to get moving than did Brock.

The likelihood of Brock being faster than one of the fasted active players of the day are slim.

And not that speed exactly equals base-stealing ability. The two are obviously very related, but so many other pieces go into any stat than just the most obvious component. Health and a long career usually help, for instance.

And again, I don't expect the speedy Crawford to pass Brock's career total.

And if he did, I'd still hold Brock in higher regard.

Is that fair? I don't know.

Is that because Brock had to do more with less speed? I don't know.

Shouldn't I give Crawford the nod in the argument since he's face bigger, stronger, faster competition? Maybe?

I'm not saying it's correct, but I tend to hold the past in high regard, as do others I know.

It's probably the same reason I ignore discussions of "Is Kobe  Bryant the greatest Laker ever?" or "Is LeBron James or Kobe Bryant better than Michael Jordan?"

Honestly, it's impossible to say for sure.

Some people may be just as biased toward the present for some reason as I am toward the past.

Players active at the same time also have to play with and against different levels of competition and under different circumstances — so just imagine the difference between players who play in different timeframes or eras.

You can compare their statistics all day, and that may or may not be fair.

It's fun to keep statistics and consider who holds or who might take records — even if the records might just reflect differences in the timeframe and competition.

But it's not possible to really conclude who's "better" or "best" or "greatest" or any other comparative or superlative.

And why do we as a group — of U.S. citizens or sports fans or media — feel the need to?

Lou Brock was pretty fast and a pretty good base stealer — and now Carl Crawford is the same.

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player — and now so are LeBron James and Kobe Bryant.

Who's best? I don't know, but it's pointless to argue.

As far as the basketball example ...

Jordan's career passed along as we worried so much about dubbing him to best to ever lace up his sneakers.

And now, Kobe's and LeBron's careers are moving steadily along as we debate which is better and whether either or both are better than Jordan?

We'd served to stop arguing, turn on the television or head to an arena and appreciate them for what they are: great basketball players.

The greatest? I don't know, and neither do you.